URA Customs Department Manager, Geoffrey Balamaga has said Kyagulanyi’s vehicle was declared to customs as an ordinary vehicle and not an armoured one, and therefore, less taxes were paid for it.
“Armored vehicles are restricted items under the Customs law and the law regulating the Uganda People’s Defence Forces and requires special permission to import or own and thus it would only be proper if the applicant(Kyagulanyi) cooperates with the respondent (URA) to clarify on and clear the matter as the law requires,” URA’s Balamaga says.
Bobi Wine earlier last week ran to High Court to stop URA from impounding his armoured vehicle, alleging that he is being targeted for his involvement in politics especially the recently concluded 2021 presidential elections where he was a presidential candidate.
In his ignorance of the law, Bobi Wine is still stuck to the car which he under declared to the tax body, oblivious of the law processes he should have gone through to acquire the vehicle.
He claims that if he hands over his motor vehicle to URA, he will be left without means of transport and without the protection he sought in the armoured vehicle especially that URA is not specific on how long the motor vehicle will stay in its possession.
URA is however unmoved by Kyagulanyi’s allegations which it says are not based on the law. Balamaga says that unless examined for the second time, the queries raised on the vehicle would remain pending and substantial.
“The sweeping allegations of the applicant that he has been a target of different government agencies are denied and false. URA has never targeted the applicant for any reason before, at and after the presidential elections for any sinister reason or at all. The examination of a vehicle could be just a matter of hours if the applicant cooperated and all documents are in order. The fears of the vehicle’s detention for a longer period is baseless.”
URA said that their main aim is to carry out a proper evaluation of the vehicle to ascertain whether it was not under-declared.
“It is only proper and fair that the applicant(Kyagulanyi) validates or rebuts the respondent’s preliminary findings in regard to the suit motor vehicle by cooperating and participating in the full examination of the vehicle upon being produced at the respondent’s address.”
URA says Kyagulanyi’s petition before the High Court is misplaced since it ought to have been filed before the Tax Appeals Tribunal which has jurisdiction and wants court to dismiss it.
The Court has set April 6, 2021 to give its ruling on the matter.
